Laborem Exercens

Encyclical on Human Work
His Holiness Pope John Paul II
September 14, 1981

To Our Venerable Brothers in the Episcopate, to the Priests, to the
Religious Families, to the Sons and Daughters of the Church, and to all
Men and Women of Good Will.

Venerable Brothers, and Dear Sons and Daughters, Greetings and the
Apostolic Blessing.

THROUGH WORK man must earn his daily bread[1] and contribute to the
continual advance of science and technology and, above all, to elevating
unceasingly the cultural and moral level of the society within which he
lives in community with those who belong to the same family. And work
means any activity by man, whether manual or intellectual, whatever its
nature or circumstances; it means any human activity that can and must be
recognized as work, in the midst of all the many activities of which man
is capable and to which he is predisposed by his very natures, by virtue
of humanity itself. Man is made to be in the visible universe and image
and likeness of God himself,[2] and he is placed in it in order to subdue
the earth.[3] From the beginning therefore he is called to work. Work is
one of the characteristics that distinguish man from the rest of
creatures, whose activity for sustaining their lives cannot be called
work. Only man is capable of work, and only man works, at the same time
by work occupying his existence on earth. Thus work bears a particular
mark of man and of humanity, the mark of a person operating within a
community of persons. And this mark decides its interior characteristics;
in a sense it constitutes its very nature.

I. INTRODUCTION

Human Work on the Ninetieth Anniversary of Rerum Novarum

2. Since May 15 of the present year was the ninetieth anniversary of the
publication by the great Pope of the "social question", Leo XIII, of the
decisively important encyclical which begins with the words Rerum
novarum, I wish to devote this document to human work and, even more, to
man in the vast context of the reality of work. As I said in the
encyclical Redemptor hominis, published at the beginning of my service in
the See of Saint Peter in Rome, man "is the primary and fundamental way
for the Church",[4] precisely because of the inscrutable mystery of
redemption in Christ; and so it is necessary to return constantly to this
way and to follow it ever anew in the various aspects in which it shows
us all the wealth and at the same time all the toil of human existence on
earth.

3. Work is one of these aspects, a perennial and fundamental one, one
that is always relevant and constantly demands renewed attention and
decisive witness. Because fresh questions and problems are always
arising, there are always fresh hopes, but also fresh fears and threats,
connected with this basic dimension of human existence: man's life is
built up every day from work, from work it derives its specific dignity,
but at the same time work contains the unceasing measure of human toil
and suffering, and also of the harm and injustice which penetrate deeply
into social life within individual nations and on the international
level. While it is true that man eats the bread produced by the work of
his hands[5]--and this means not only the daily bread by which his body
keeps alive but also the bread of science and progress, civilization and
culture--it is also a perennial truth that he eats this bread by "the
sweat of his face,"[6] that is to say, not only by personal effort and
toil but also in the midst of many tensions, conflicts and crises, which,
in relationship with the reality of work, disturb the life of individual
societies and also of all humanity.

4. We are celebrating the ninetieth anniversary of the encyclical Rerum
Novarum on the eve of new developments in technological, economic and
political conditions which, according to many experts, will influence the
world of work and production no less than the industrial revolution of
the last century. There are many factors of a general nature: the
widespread introduction of automation into many spheres of production,
the increase in the cost of energy and raw materials, the growing
realization that the heritage of nature is limited and that it is being
intolerably polluted, and the emergence on the political scene of peoples
who, after centuries of subjection, are demanding their rightful place
among the nations and in international decision-making. These new
conditions and demands will require a reordering and adjustment of the
structures of the modern economy and of the distribution of work.
Unfortunately, for millions of skilled workers these changes may perhaps
mean unemployment, at least for a time, or the need for retraining. They
will very probably involve a reduction or a less rapid increase in
material well-being for the more developed countries. But they can also
bring relief and hope to the millions who today live in conditions of
shameful and unworthy poverty.

5. It is not for the Church to analyze scientifically the consequences
that these changes may have on human society. But the Church considers it
her task always to call attention to the dignity and rights of those who
work, to condemn situations in which that dignity and those rights are
violated, and to help to guide the above mentioned changes so as to
ensure authentic progress by man and society.

In the Organic Development of the Church's Social Action and Teaching

6. It is certainly true that work, as a human issue, is at the very
center of the "social question" to which, for almost a hundred years,
since the publication of the above mentioned encyclical, the Church's
teaching and the many undertakings connected with her apostolic mission
have been especially directed. The present reflections on work are not
intended to follow a different line, but rather to be in organic
connection with the whole tradition of this teaching and activity. At the
same time, however, I am making them, according to the indication in the
Gospel, in order to bring out from the heritage of the Gospel "what is
new and what is old".[7] Certainly, work is part of "what is old"--as old
as man and his life on earth. Nevertheless, the general situation of man
in the modern world, studied and analyzed in its various aspects of
geography, culture and civilization, calls for the discovery of the new
meanings of human work. It likewise calls for the formulation of the new
tasks that in this sector face each individual, the family, each country,
the whole human race and finally the Church herself.

7. During the years that separate us from the publication of the
encyclical Rerum novarum, the social question has not ceased to engage
the Church's attention. Evidence of this are the many documents of the
magisterium issued by the popes and by the Second Vatican Council,
pronouncements by individual episcopates, and the activity of the various
centers of thought and of practical apostolic initiatives, both on the
international level and at the level of the local churches. It is
difficult to list here in detail all the manifestations of the commitment
of the Church and of Christians in the social question, for they are too
numerous. As a result of the Council, the main coordinating center in
this field is the Pontifical Commission Justice and Peace, which has
corresponding bodies within the individual Bishops' Conferences. The name
of this institution is very significant. It indicates that the social
question must be dealt with in its whole complex dimension. Commitment to
justice must be closely linked with commitment to peace in the modern
world. This twofold commitment is certainly supported by the painful
experience of the two great world wars which in the course of the last
ninety years have convulsed many European countries and, at least
partially, countries in other continents. It is supported especially
since World War 11, by the permanent threat of a nuclear war and the
prospect of the terrible self-destruction that emerges from it.

8. If we follow the main line of development of the documents of the
supreme magisterium of the Church, we find in them an explicit
confirmation of precisely such a statement of the question. The key
position, as regards the question of world peace, is that of John XXIII's
encyclical Pacem in terris. However, if one studies the development of
the question of social justice, one cannot fail to note that, whereas
during the period between Rerum novarum and Pius XI's Quadragesimo anno
the Church's teaching concentrates mainly on the just solution of the
"labor question" within individual nations, in the next period the
Church's teaching widens its horizon to take in the whole world. The
disproportionate distribution of wealth and poverty and the existence of
some countries and continents that are developed and of others that are
not call for a leveling out and for a search for ways to ensure just
development for all. This is the direction of the teaching in John
XXIII's encyclical Mater et Magistra, in the Pastoral Constitution
Gaudium et spes of the Second Vatican Council, and in Paul Vl's
encyclical Populorum progressio.

9. This trend of development of the Church's teaching and commitment in
the social question exactly corresponds to the objective recognition of
the state of affairs. While in the past the "class" question was
especially highlighted as the center of this issue, in more recent times
it is the "world" question that is emphasized. Thus, not only the sphere
of class is taken into consideration but also the world sphere of
inequality and injustice, and as a consequence, not only the class
dimension but also the world dimension of the tasks involved in the path
towards the achievement of justice in the modern world. A complete
analysis of the situation of the world today shows in an even deeper and
fuller way the meaning of the previous analysis of social injustices; and
it is the meaning that must be given today to efforts to build justice on
earth, not concealing thereby unjust structures but demanding that they
be examined and transformed on a more universal scale.

The Question of Work, the Key to the Social Question

10. In the midst of all these processes--those of the diagnosis of
objective social reality and also those of the Church's teaching in the
sphere of the complex and many-sided social question--the question of
human work naturally appears many times. This issue is, in a way, a
constant factor both of social life and of the Church's teaching.
Furthermore, in this teaching attention to the question goes back much
further than the last ninety years. In fact the Church's social teaching
finds its source in sacred scripture, beginning with the Book of Genesis
and especially in the Gospel and the writings of the apostles. From the
beginning it was part of the Church's teaching, her concept of man and
life in society, and, especially the social morality which she worked out
according to the needs of the different ages. This traditional patrimony
was then inherited and developed by the teaching of the popes on the
modern "social question", beginning with the encyclical Rerum novarum. In
this context, study of the question of work, as we have seen, has
continually been brought up to date while maintaining that Christian
basis of truth which can be called ageless.

11. While in the present document we return to this question once
more--without however any intention of touching on all the topics that
concern it--this it not merely in order to gather together and repeat
what is already contained in the Church's teaching. It is rather in order
to highlight--perhaps more than has been done before--the fact that human
work is a key, probably the essential key, to the whole social question,
if we try to see that question really from the point of view of man's
good. And if the solution--or rather the gradual solution--of the social
question, which keeps coming up and becomes ever more complex, must be
sought in the direction of "making life more human,"[8] then the key,
namely human work, acquires fundamental and decisive importance.

II. WORK AND MAN

In the Book of Genesis

12. The Church is convinced that work is a fundamental dimension of man's
existence on earth. She is confirmed in this conviction by considering
the whole heritage of the many sciences devoted to man: anthropology,
palaeontology, history, sociology, psychology and so on; they all seem to
bear witness to this reality in an irrefutable way. But the source of the
Church's conviction is above all the revealed word of God, and therefore
what is a conviction of the intellect is also a conviction of faith. The
reason is that the Church--and it is worthwhile stating it at this
point--believes in man: she thinks of man and addresses herself to him
not only in the light of historical experience, not only with the aid of
the many methods of scientific knowledge, but in the first place in the
light of the revealed word of the living God. Relating herself to man,
she seeks to express the eternal designs and transcendent destiny which
the living God, the Creator and Redeemer, has linked with him.

13. The Church finds in the very first pages of the Book of Genesis the
source of her conviction that work is a fundamental dimension of human
existence on earth. An analysis of these texts makes us aware that they
express--sometimes in an archaic way of manifesting thought--the
fundamental truths about man, in the context of the mystery of creation
itself. These truths are decisive for man from the very beginning, and at
the same time they trace out the main lines of his earthly existence,
both in the state of original justice and also after the breaking, caused
by sin, of the creator's original covenant with creation in man. When
man, who had been created "in the image of God....male and female,"[9]
hears the words: "Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and
subdue it,"[10] even though these words do not refer directly and
explicitly to work, beyond any doubt they indirectly indicate it as an
activity for man to carry out in the world. Indeed, they show its very
deepest essence. Man is the image of God partly through the mandate
received from his creator to subdue, to dominate, the earth. In carrying
out this mandate, man, every human being, reflects the very action of the
creator of the universe.

14. Work understood as a "transitive" activity, that is to say an
activity beginning in the human subject and directed toward an external
object, presupposes a specific dominion by man over "the earth", and in
its turn it confirms and develops this dominion. It is clear that the
term "the earth" of which the biblical text speaks is to be understood in
the first place as that fragment of the visible universe that man
inhabits. By extension, however, it can be understood as the whole of the
visible world insofar as it comes within the range of man's influence and
of his striving to satisfy his needs. The expression "subdue the earth"
has an immense range. It means all the resources that the earth (and
indirectly the visible world) contains and which, through the conscious
activity of man, can be discovered and used for his ends. And so these
words, placed at the beginning of the Bible, never cease to be relevant.
They embrace equally the past ages of civilization and economy, as also
the whole of modern reality and future phases of development, which are
perhaps already to some extent beginning to take shape, though for the
most part they are still almost unknown to man and hidden from him.

15. While people sometimes speak of periods of "acceleration" in the
economic life and civilization of humanity or of individual nations,
linking these periods to the progress of science and technology and
especially to discoveries which are decisive for social and economic
life, at the same time it can be said that none of these phenomena of
"acceleration" exceeds the essential content of what was said in that
most ancient of biblical texts. As man, through his work, becomes more
and more the master of the earth, and as he confirms his dominion over
the visible world, again through his work, he nevertheless remains in
every case and at every phase of this process within the Creator's
original ordering. And this ordering remains necessarily and indissolubly
linked with the fact that man was created, as male and female, "in the
image of God." This process is, at the same time, universal: It embraces
all human beings, every generation, every phase of economic and cultural
development, and at the same time it is a process that takes place within
each human being, in each conscious human being, in each conscious human
subject. Each and every individual is at the same time embraced by it.
Each and every individual, to the proper extent and in an incalculable
number of ways, takes part in the giant process whereby man "subdues the
earth" through his work.

Work in the Objective Sense: Technology

16. This universality and, at the same time, this multiplicity of the
process of "subduing the earth" throw light upon human work, because
man's dominion over the earth is achieved in and by means of work. There
thus emerges the meaning of work in an objective sense, which finds
expression in the various epochs of culture and civilization. Man
dominates the earth by the very fact of domesticating animals, rearing
them and obtaining from them the food and clothing he needs, and by the
fact of being able to extract various natural resources from the earth
and the seas. But man "subdues the earth" much more when he begins to
cultivate it and then to transform its products, adapting them to his own
use. Thus agriculture constitutes through human work a primary field of
economic activity and an indispensable factor of production. Industry in
its turn will always consist in linking the earth's riches--whether
nature's living resources, or the products of agriculture, or the mineral
or chemical resources--with man's work, whether physical or intellectual.
This is also in a sense true in the sphere of what are called service
industries, and also in the sphere of research, pure or applied .

17. In industry and agriculture man's work has today in many cases ceased
to be mainly manual, for the toil of human hands and muscles is aided by
more and more highly perfected machinery. Not only in industry but also
in agriculture we are witnessing the transformations made possible by the
gradual development of science and technology. Historically speaking
this, taken as a whole, has caused great changes in civilization, from
the beginning of the "industrial era" to the successive phases of
development through new technologies, such as the electronics and the
microprocessor technology in recent years.

18. While it may seem that in the industrial process it is the machine
that "works" and man merely supervises it, making it function and keeping
it going in various ways, it is also true that for this very reason
industrial development provides grounds for reproposing in new ways the
question of human work. Both the original industrialization that gave
rise to what is called the worker question and the subsequent industrial
and postindustrial changes show in an eloquent manner that, even in the
age of ever more mechanized "work," the proper subject of work continues
to be man.

19. The development of industry and of the various sectors connected with
it, even the most modern electronics technology, especially in the fields
of miniaturization, communications and tele-communications and so forth,
show how vast is the role of technology, that ally of work that human
thought has produced, in the interaction between the subject and object
of work (in the widest sense of the word). Understood in this case not as
a capacity or aptitude for work, but rather as a whole set of instruments
which man uses in his work, technology is undoubtedly man's ally. It
facilitates his work, perfects, accelerates and augments it. It leads to
an increase in the quantity of things produced by work, and in many cases
improves their quality. However, it is also a fact that, in some
instances, technology can cease to be man's ally and become almost his
enemy, as when the mechanization of work "supplants" him, taking away all
personal satisfaction and the incentive to creativity and responsibility,
when it deprives many workers of their previous employment, or when,
through exalting the machine, it reduces man to the status of its slave.

20. If the biblical words "subdue the earth" addressed to man from the
very beginning are understood in the context of the whole modern age,
industrial and post-industrial, then they undoubtedly include also a
relationship with technology, with the world of machinery which is the
fruit of the work of the human intellect and a historical confirmation of
man's dominion over nature.

21. The recent stage of human history, especially that of certain
societies, brings a correct affirmation of technology as a basic
coefficient of economic progress; but at the same time this affirmation
has been accompanied by and continues to be accompanied by essential
questions concerning human work in relationship to its subject, which is
man. These questions are particularly charged with content and tension of
an ethical and social character. They therefore constitute a continual
challenge for institutions of many kinds, for states and governments, for
systems and international organizations; they also constitute a challenge
for the Church.

Work in the Subjective Sense: Man as the Subject of Work

22. In order to continue our analysis of work, an analysis linked with
the word of the Bible telling man that he is to subdue the earth, we must
concentrate our attention on work in the subjective sense, much more than
we did on the objective significance, barely touching upon the vast range
of problems known intimately and in detail to scholars in various fields
and also, according to their specializations, to those who work. If the
words of the Book of Genesis to which we refer in this analysis of ours
speak of work in the objective sense in an indirect way, they also speak
only indirectly of the subject of work; but what they say is very
eloquent and is full of great significance.

23. Man has to subdue the earth and dominate it, because as the "image of
God" he is a person, that is to say, a subjective being capable of acting
in a planned and rational way, capable of deciding about himself and with
a tendency to self-realization. As a person, man is therefore the subject
of work. As a person he works, he performs various actions belonging to
the work process; independently of their objective content, these actions
must all serve to realize his humanity, to fulfill the calling to be a
person that is his by reason of his very humanity. The principal truths
concerning this theme were recently recalled by the Second Vatican
Council in the constitution Gaudium et spes, especially in Chapter 1,
which is devoted to man's calling.

24. And so this "dominion" spoken of in the biblical text being meditated
upon here refers not only to the objective dimension of work, but at the
same time introduces us to an understanding of its subjective dimension.
Understood as a process whereby man and the human race subdue the earth,
work corresponds to this basic biblical concept only when throughout the
process man manifests himself and confirms himself as the one who
"dominates." This dominion, in a certain sense, refers to the subjective
dimension even more than to the objective one: This dimension conditions
the very ethical nature of work. In fact there is no doubt that human
work has an ethical value of its own, which clearly and directly remains
linked to the fact that the one who carries it out is a person, a
conscious and free subject, that is to say, a subject that decides about
himself.

25. This truth, which in a sense constitutes the fundamental and
perennial heart of Christian teaching on human work, has had and
continues to have primary significance for the formulation of the
important social problems characterizing whole ages.

26. The ancient world introduced its own typical differentiation of
people into classes according to the type of work done. Work which
demanded from the worker the exercise of physical strength, the work of
muscles and hands, was considered unworthy of free men and was therefore
given to slaves. By broadening certain aspects that already belonged to
the Old Testament, Christianity brought about a fundamental change of
ideas in this field, taking the whole content of the gospel message as
its point of departure, especially the fact that the one who, while being
God, became like us in all things[11] "devoted most of the years of his
life on earth to manual work at the carpenter's bench. This circumstance
constitutes in itself the most eloquent "gospel of work," showing that
the basis for determining the value of human work is not primarily the
kind of work being done, but the fact that the one who is doing it is a
person. The sources of the dignity of work are to be sought primarily in
the subjective dimension, not in the objective one.

27. Such a concept practically does away with the very basis of the
ancient differentiation of people into classes according to the kind of
work done. This does not mean that from the objective point of view human
work cannot and must not be rated and qualified in any way. It only means
that the primary basis of the value of work is man himself, who is its
subject. This leads immediately to a very important conclusion of an
ethical nature: However true it may be that man is destined for work and
called to it, in the first place work is "for man" and not man "for
work." Through this conclusion one rightly comes to recognize the
pre-eminence of the subjective meaning of work over the objective one.
Given this way of understanding things and presupposing that different
sorts of work that people do can have greater or lesser objective value,
let us try nevertheless to show that each sort is judged above all by the
measure of the dignity of the subject of work, that is to say, the
person, the individual who carries it out. On the other hand, independent
of the work that every man does, and presupposing that this work
constitutes a purpose--at times a very demanding one--of his activity,
this purpose does not possess a definitive meaning in itself. In fact, in
the final analysis it is always man who is the purpose of the work,
whatever work it is that is done by man--even if the common scale of
values rates it as the merest "service," as the most monotonous, even the
most alienating work.

A Threat to the Right Order of Values

28. It is precisely these fundamental affirmations about work that always
emerged from the wealth of Christian truth, especially from the very
message of the "gospel of work," thus creating the basis for a new way of
thinking, judging and acting. In the modern period, from the beginning of
the industrial age, the Christian truth about work had to oppose the
various trends of materialistic and economistic thought.

29. For certain supporters of such ideas, work was understood and treated
as a sort of "merchandise" that the worker--especially the industrial
worker--sells to the employer, who at the same time is the possessor of
the capital, that is to say, of all the working tools and means that make
production possible. This way of looking at work was widespread
especially in the first half of the 19th century. Since then explicit
expressions of this sort have almost disappeared and have given way to
more human ways of thinking about work and evaluating it. The interaction
between the worker and the tools and means of production has given rise
to the development of various forms of capitalism--parallel with various
forms of collectivism--into which other socioeconomic elements have
entered as a consequence of new concrete circumstances, of the activity
of workers' associations and public authorities, and of the emergence of
large transnational enterprises. Nevertheless, the danger of treating
work as a special kind of "merchandise" or as an impersonal "force"
needed for production (the expression "work force" is in fact in common
use) always exists, especially when the whole way of looking at the
question of economics is marked by the premises of materialistic
economism.

30. A systematic opportunity for thinking and evaluating in this way, and
in a certain sense a stimulus for doing so, is provided by the quickening
process of the development of a onesidedly materialistic civilization,
which gives prime importance to the objective dimension of work, while
the subjective dimension--everything in direct or indirect relationship
with the subject of work--remains on a secondary level. In all cases of
this sort, in every social situation of this type, there is a confusion
or even a reversal of the order laid down from the beginning by the words
of the Book of Genesis: Man is treated as an instrument of
production,[12] whereas he--alone, independent of the work he does--ought
to be treated as the effective subject of work and its true maker and
creator. Precisely this reversal of order, whatever the program or name
under which it occurs, should rightly be called "capitalism"--in the
sense more fully explained below. Everybody knows that capitalism has a
definite historical meaning as a system, an economic and social system,
opposed to "socialism" or "communism." But in light of the analysis of
the fundamental reality of the whole economic process--first and foremost
of the production structure that work is--it should be recognized that
the error of early capitalism can be repeated wherever man is in a way
treated on the same level as the whole complex of the material means of
production, as an instrument and not in accordance with the true dignity
of his work--that is to say, where he is not treated as subject and
maker, and for this very reason as the true purpose of the whole process
of production.

31. This explains why the analysis of human work in the light of the
works concerning man's "dominion" over the earth goes to the very heart
of the ethical and social question. This concept should also find a
central place in the whole sphere of social and economic policy, both
within individual countries and in the wider field of international and
intercontinental relationships, particularly with reference to the
tensions making themselves felt in the world not only between East and
West but also between North and South. Both John XXIII in the encyclical
Mater et Magistra and Paul Vl in the encyclical Populorum progressio gave
special attention to these dimensions of the modern ethical and social
question.

Worker Solidarity

32. When dealing with human work in the fundamental dimension of its
subject, that is to say, the human person doing work, one must make at
least a summary evaluation of developments during the ninety years since
Rerum novarum in relation to the subjective dimension of work. Although
the subject of work is always the same, that is to say man, nevertheless
wide-ranging changes take place in the objective aspect. While one can
say that, by reason of its subject, work is one single thing (one and
unrepeatable every time) yet when one takes into consideration its
objective directions one is forced to admit that there exist many works,
many different sorts of work. The development of human civilization
brings continual enrichment in this field. But at the same time, one
cannot fail to note that in the process of this development not only do
new forms of work appear but also others disappear. Even if one accepts
that on the whole this is a normal phenomenon, it must still be seen
whether certain ethically and socially dangerous irregularities creep in
and to what extent.

33. It was precisely one such wide-ranging anomaly that gave rise in the
last century to what has been called "the worker question," sometimes
described as "the proletariat question." This question and the problems
connected with it gave rise to a just social reaction and caused the
impetuous emergence of a great burst of solidarity between workers, first
and foremost industrial workers. The call to solidarity and common action
addressed to the workers--especially to those engaged in narrowly
specialized, monotonous and depersonalized work in industrial plants,
when the machine tends to dominate man--was important and eloquent from
the point of view of social ethics. It was the reaction against the
degradation of man as the subject of work and against the unheard--of
accompanying exploitation in the field of wages, working conditions and
social security for the worker. This reaction united the working world in
a community marked by great solidarity.

34. Following the lines laid down by the encyclical Rerum novarum and
many later documents of the Church's magisterium, it must be frankly
recognized that the reaction against the system of injustice and harm
that cried to heaven for vengeance[13] and that weighed heavily upon
workers in that period of rapid industrialization was justified from the
point of view of social morality. This state of affairs was favored by
the liberal socio-political system which in accordance with its
"economistic" premises, strengthened and safeguarded economic initiative
by the possessors of capital alone, but did not pay sufficient attention
to the rights of the workers, on the grounds that human work is solely an
instrument of production, and that capital is the basis, efficient factor
and purpose of production.

35. From that time, worker solidarity, together with a clearer and more
committed realization by others of workers' rights, has in many cases
brought about profound changes. Various forms of neocapitalism or
collectivism have developed. Various new systems have been thought out.
Workers can often share in running businesses and in controlling their
productivity, and in fact do so. Through appropriate associations they
exercise influence over conditions of work and pay, and also over social
legislation. But at the same time various ideological or power systems
and new relationships which have arisen at various levels of society have
allowed flagrant injustices to persist or have created new ones. On the
world level, the development of civilization and of communications has
made possible a more complete diagnosis of the living and working
conditions of man globally, but it has also revealed other forms of
injustice much more extensive than those which in the last century
stimulated unity between workers for particular solidarity in the working
world. This is true in countries which have completed a certain process
of industrial revolution. It is also true in countries where the main
working milieu continues to be agriculture or other similar occupations.

36. Movements of solidarity in the sphere of work--a solidarity that must
never mean being closed to dialogue and collaboration with others--can be
necessary also with reference to the condition of social groups that were
not previously included in such movements, but which in changing social
systems and conditions of living are undergoing what is in effect
"proletarianization" or which actually already find themselves in a
"proletariat" situation, one which, even if not yet given that name, in
fact deserves it. This can be true of certain categories or groups of the
working "intelligentsia," especially when ever wider access to education
and an ever increasing number of people with degrees or diplomas in the
fields of their cultural preparation are accompanied by a drop in demand
for their labor. This unemployment of intellectuals occurs or increases
when the education available is not oriented toward the types of
employment or service required by the true needs of society, or when
there is less demand for work which requires education, at least
professional education, than for manual labor, or when it is less well
paid. Of course, education in itself is always valuable and an important
enrichment of the human person; but in spite of that,
"proletarianization" processes remain possible.

37. For this reason there must be continued study of the subject of work
and of the subject's living conditions. In order to achieve social
justice in the various parts of the world, in the various countries and
in the relationships between them, there is a need for ever new movements
of solidarity of the workers and with the workers. This solidarity must
be present whenever it is called for by the social degrading of the
subject of work, by exploitation of the workers and by the growing areas
of poverty and even hunger. The Church is firmly committed to this cause
for she considers it her mission, her service, a proof of her fidelity to
Christ, so that she can truly be the "Church of the poor." And the "poor"
appear under various forms; they appear in various places and at various
times; in many cases they appear as a result of the violation of the
dignity of human work: either because the opportunities for human work
are limited as a result of the scourge of unemployment or because a low
value is put on work and the rights that flow from it, especially the
right to a just wage and to the personal security of the worker and his
or her family.

Work and Personal Dignity

38. Remaining within the context of man as the subject of work, it is now
appropriate to touch upon, at least in a summary way, certain problems
that more closely define the dignity of human work in that they make it
possible to characterize more fully its specific moral value. In doing
this we must always keep in mind the biblical calling to "subdue the
earth,"[14] in which is expressed the will of the Creator that work
should enable man to achieve that "dominion" in the visible world that is
proper to him.

39. God's fundamental and original intention with regard to man, whom he
created in his image and after his likeness,[15] was not withdrawn or
canceled out even when man, having broken the original covenant with God,
heard the words: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread."[16]
These words refer to the sometimes heavy toil that from then onward has
accompanied human work; but they do not alter the fact that work is the
means whereby man achieves that "dominion" which is proper to him over
the visible world, by "subjecting" the earth. Toil is something that is
universally known, for it is universally experienced. It is familiar to
those doing physical work under sometimes exceptionally laborious
conditions. It is familiar not only to agricultural workers, who spend
long days working the land, which sometimes "bears thorns and
thistles,"[17] but also to those who work in mines and quarries, to
steelworkers at their blast furnaces, to those who work in builders'
yards and in construction work, often in danger of injury or death. It is
also familiar to those at an intellectual workbench; to scientists; to
those who bear the burden of grave responsibility for decisions that will
have a vast impact on society. It is familiar to doctors and nurses, who
spend days and nights at their patients' bedside. It is familiar to
women, who sometimes without proper recognition on the part of society
and even of their own families bear the daily burden and responsibility
for their homes and the upbringing of their children. It is familiar to
all workers and, since work is a universal calling, it is familiar to
everyone.

40. And yet in spite of all this toil--perhaps, in a sense, because of
it--work is a good thing for man. Even though it bears the mark of a
bonum arduum, in the terminology of St. Thomas,[18] this does not take
away the fact that, as such, it is a good thing for man. It is not only
good in the sense that it is useful or something to enjoy it is also good
as being something worthy, that is to say, something that corresponds to
man's dignity, that expresses this dignity and increases it. If one
wishes to define more clearly the ethical meaning of work, it is this
truth that one must particularly keep in mind. Work is a good thing for
man--a good thing for his humanity--because through work man not only
transforms nature, adapting it to his own needs, but he also achieves
fulfillment as a human being and indeed in a sense becomes "more a human
being."

41. Without this consideration it is impossible to understand the meaning
of the virtue of industriousness, and more particularly it is impossible
to understand why industriousness should be a virtue: For virtue, as a
moral habit, is something whereby man becomes good as man.[19] This fact
in no way alters our justifiable anxiety that in work, whereby matter
gains in nobility, man himself should not experience a lowering of his
own dignity.[20] Again, it is well known that it is possible to use work
in various ways against man, that it is possible to punish man with the
system of forced labor in concentration camps, that work can be made into
a means for oppressing man, and that in various ways it is possible to
exploit human labor, that is to say, the worker. All this pleads in favor
of the moral obligation to link industriousness as a virtue with the
social order of work, which will enable man to become in work "more a
human being" and not be degraded by it not only because of the wearing
out of his physical strength (which, at least up to a certain point, is
inevitable), but especially through damage to the dignity and
subjectivity that are proper to him.

Work and Society: Family and Nation

42. Having thus confirmed the personal dimension of human work, we must
go on to the second sphere of values which is necessarily linked to work.
Work constitutes a foundation for the formation of family life, which is
a natural right and something that man is called to. These two spheres of
values--one linked to work and the other consequent on the family nature
of human life--must be properly united and must properly permeate each
other. In a way, work is a condition for making it possible to found a
family, since the family requires the means of subsistence which man
normally gains through work. Work and industriousness also influence the
whole process of education in the family, for the very reason that
everyone "becomes a human being" through, among other things, work, and
becoming a human being is precisely the main purpose of the whole process
of education. Obviously, two aspects of work in a sense come into play
here: the one making family life and its upkeep possible, and the other
making possible the achievement of the purposes of the family, especially
education. Nevertheless, these two aspects of work are linked to one
another and are mutually complementary in various points.

43. It must be remembered and affirmed that the family constitutes one of
the most important terms of reference for shaping the social and ethical
order of human work. The teaching of the Church has always devoted
special attention to this question, and in the present document we shall
have to return to it. In fact, the family is simultaneously a community
made possible by work and the first school of work, within the home, for
every person.

44. The third sphere of values that emerges from this point of view--that
of the subject of work--concerns the great society to which man belongs
on the basis of particular cultural and historical links. This
society--even when it has not yet taken on the mature form of a
nation--is not only the great "educator" of every man, even though an
indirect one (because each individual absorbs within the family the
contents and values that go to make up the culture of a given nation); it
is also a great historical and social incarnation of the work of all
generations. All of this brings it about that man combines his deepest
human identity with membership of a nation, and intends his work also to
increase the common good developed together with his compatriots, thus
realizing that in this way work serves to add to the heritage of the
whole human family, of all the people living in the world.

45. These three spheres are always important for human work in its
subjective dimension. And this dimension, that is to say, the concrete
reality of the worker, takes precedence over the objective dimension. In
the subjective dimension there is realized, first of all, that "dominion"
over the world of nature to which man is called from the beginning
according to the words of the Book of Genesis. The very process of
"subduing the earth," that is to say work, is marked in the course of
history and especially in recent centuries by an immense development of
technological means. This is an advantageous and positive phenomenon, on
condition that the objective dimension of work does not gain the upper
hand over the subjective dimension, depriving man of his dignity and
inalienable rights or reducing

III. CONFLICT BETWEEN LABOR AND CAPITAL IN THE PRESENT PHASE OF HISTORY

Dimensions of the Conflict

46. The sketch of the basic problems of work outlined above draws
inspiration from the texts at the beginning of the Bible and in a sense
forms the very framework of the Church's teaching, which has remained
unchanged throughout the centuries within the context of different
historical experiences. However, the experiences preceding and following
the publication of the encyclical Rerum novarum form a background that
endows that teaching with particular expressiveness and the eloquence of
living relevance. In this analysis, work is seen as a great reality with
a fundamental influence on the shaping in a human way of the world that
the Creator has entrusted to man; it is a reality closely linked with man
as the subject of work and with man's rational activity. In the normal
course of events this reality fills human life and strongly affects its
value and meaning. Even when it is accompanied by toil and effort, work
is still something good, and so man develops through love for work. This
entirely positive and creative, educational and meritorious character of
man's work must be the basis for the judgments and decisions being made
today in its regard in spheres that include human rights, as is evidenced
by the international declarations on work and the many labor codes
prepared either by the competent legislative institutions in the various
countries or by organizations devoting their social, or scientific and
social, activity to the problems of work. One organization fostering such
initiatives on the international level is the International Labor
Organization, the oldest specialized agency of the United Nations.

47. In the following part of these considerations I intend to return in
greater detail to these important questions, recalling at least the basic
elements of the Church's teaching on the matter. I must however first
touch on a very important field of questions in which her teaching has
taken shape in this latest period, the one marked and in a sense
symbolized by the publication of the encyclical Rerum novarum.

48. Throughout this period, which is by no means yet over, the issue of
work has of course been posed on the basis of the great conflict that in
the age of and together with industrial development emerged between
"capital" and "labor," that is to say between the small but highly
influential group of entrepreneurs, owners or holders of the means of
production, and the broader multitude of people who lacked these means
and who shared in the process of production solely by their labor. The
conflict originated in the fact that the workers put their powers at the
disposal of the entrepreneurs and these, following the principle of
maximum profit, tried to establish the lowest possible wages for the work
done by the employees. In addition there were other elements of
exploitation connected with the lack of safety at work and of safeguards
regarding the health and living conditions of the workers and their
families.

49. This conflict, interpreted by some as a socioeconomic class conflict,
found expression in the ideological conflict between liberalism,
understood as the ideology of capitalism, and Marxism, understood as the
ideology of scientific socialism and communism, which professes to act as
the spokesman for the working class and the worldwide proletariat. Thus
the real conflict between labor and capital was transformed into a
systematic class struggle conducted not only by ideological means, but
also and chiefly by political means. We are familiar with the history of
this conflict and with the demands of both sides. The Marxist program,
based on the philosophy of Marx and Engels, sees in class struggle the
only way to eliminate class injustices in society and to eliminate the
classes themselves. Putting this program into practice presupposes the
collectivization of the means of production so that through the transfer
of these means from private hands to the collectivity human labor will be
preserved from exploitation.

50. This is the goal of the struggle carried on by political as well as
ideological means. In accordance with the principle of "the dictatorship
of the proletariat," the groups that as political parties follow the
guidance of Marxist ideology aim by the use of various kinds of
influence, including revolutionary pressure, to win a monopoly of power
in each society in order to introduce the collectivist system into it by
eliminating private ownership of the means of production. According to
the principal ideologists and leaders of this broad international
movement, the purpose of this program of action is to achieve the social
revolution and to introduce socialism and finally the communist system
throughout the world.

51. As we touch on this extremely important field of issues, which
constitute not only a theory but a whole fabric of socioeconomic,
political and international life in our age, we cannot go into the
details nor is this necessary for they are known both from the vast
literature on the subject and by experience. Instead we must leave the
context of these issues and go back to the fundamental issue of human
work, which is the main subject of the considerations in this document.
It is clear indeed that this issue, which is of such importance for
man--it constitutes one of the fundamental dimensions of his earthly
existence and of his vocation--can also be explained only by taking into
account the full context of the contemporary situation.

The Priority of Labor

52. The structure of the present-day situation is deeply marked by many
conflicts caused by man, and the technological means produced by human
work play a primary role in it. We should also consider here the prospect
of worldwide catastrophe in the case of a nuclear war, which would have
almost unimaginable possibilities of destruction. In view of this
situation we must first of all recall a principle that has always been
taught by the Church: the principle of the priority of labor over
capital. This principle directly concerns the process of production: In
this process labor is always a primary efficient cause, while capital,
the whole collection of means of production, remains a mere instrument or
instrumental cause. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from
the whole of man's historical experience.

53. When we read in the first chapter of the Bible that man is to subdue
the earth, we know that these works refer to all the resources contained
in the visible world and placed at man's disposal. However, these
resources can serve man only through work. From the beginning there is
also linked with work the question of ownership, for the only means that
man has for causing the resources hidden in nature to serve himself and
others is his work. And to be able through his work to make these
resources bear fruit, man takes over ownership of small parts of the
various riches of nature: those beneath the ground, those in the sea, on
land or in space. He takes over all these things by making them his
workbench. He takes them over through work and for work.

54. The same principle applies in the successive phases of this process,
in which the first phase always remains the relationship of man with the
resources and riches of nature. The whole of the effort to acquire
knowledge with the aim of discovering these riches and specifying the
various ways in which they can be used by man and for man teaches us that
everything that comes from man throughout the whole process of economic
production, whether labor or the whole collection of means of production
and the technology connected with these means (meaning the capability to
use them in work), presupposes these riches and resources of the visible
world, riches and resources that man finds and does not create. In a
sense man finds them already prepared, ready for him to discover them and
to use them correctly in the productive process. In every phase of the
development of his work man comes up against the leading role of the gift
made by "nature," that is to say, in the final analysis, by the Creator.
At the beginning of man's work is the mystery of creation. This
affirmation, already indicated as my starting point, is the guiding
thread of this document and will be further developed in the last part of
these reflections.

55. Further consideration of this question should confirm our conviction
of the priority of human labor over what in the course of time we have
grown accustomed to calling capital. Since the concept of capital
includes not only the natural resources placed at man's disposal, but
also the whole collection of means by which man appropriates natural
resources and transforms them in accordance with his needs (and thus in a
sense humanizes them), it must immediately be noted that all these means
are the result of the historical heritage of human labor. All the means
of production, from the most primitive to the ultramodern one--it is man
that has gradually developed them: man's experience and intellect. In
this way there have appeared not only the simplest instruments for
cultivating the earth, but also through adequate progress in science and
technology the more modern and complex ones: machines, factories,
laboratories and computers. Thus everything that is at the service of
work, everything that in the present state of technology constitutes its
ever more highly perfected "instrument," is the result of work.

56. This gigantic and powerful instrument--the whole collection of means
of production that in a sense are considered synonymous with
"capital"--is the result of work and bears the signs of human labor. At
the present stage of technological advance, when man, who is the subject
of work, wishes to make use of this collection of modern instruments, the
means of production, he must first assimilate cognitively the result of
the work of the people who invented those instruments, who planned them,
built them and perfected them, and who continue to do so. Capacity for
work--that is to say, for sharing efficiently in the modern production
process--demands greater and greater preparation and, before all else,
proper training. Obviously it remains clear that every human being
sharing in the production process, even if he or she is only doing the
kind of work for which no special training or qualifications are
required, is the real efficient subject in this production process, while
the whole collection of instruments, no matter how perfect they may be in
themselves, are only a mere instrument subordinate to human labor.

57. This truth, which is part of the abiding heritage of the Church's
teaching, must always be emphasized with reference to the question of the
labor system and with regard to the whole socioeconomic system. We must
emphasize and give prominence to the primacy of man in the production
process, the primacy of man over things. Everything contained in the
concept of capital in the strict sense is only a collection of things.
Man, as the subject of work and independent of the work he does--man
alone is a person. This principle is an evident truth that emerges from
the whole of man's historical experience.

Economism and Materialism

58. In the light of the above truth we see clearly, first of all, that
capital cannot be separated from labor; in no way can labor be opposed to
capital or capital to labor, and still less can the actual people behind
these concepts be opposed to each other, as will be explained later. A
labor system can be right, in the sense of being in conformity with the
very essence of the issue and in the sense of being intrinsically true
and also morally legitimate, if in its very basis it overcomes the
opposition between labor and capital through an effort at being shaped in
accordance with the principle put forward above: the principle of the
substantial and real priority of labor, of the subjectivity of human
labor and its effective participation in the whole production process,
independent of the nature of the services provided by the worker.

59. Opposition between labor and capital does not spring from the
structure of the production process or from the structure of the economic
process. In general the latter process demonstrates that labor and what
we are accustomed to call capital are intermingled; it shows that they
are inseparably linked. Working at any workbench, whether a relatively
primitive or an ultramodern one, a man can easily see that through his
work he enters into two inheritances: the inheritance of what is given to
the whole of humanity in the resources of nature and the inheritance of
what others have already developed on the basis of those resources,
primarily by developing technology, that is to say, by producing a whole
collection of increasingly perfect instruments for work. In working, man
also "enters into the labor of others."[21] Guided both by our
intelligence and by the faith that draws light from the word of God, we
have no difficulty in accepting this image, of the sphere and process of
man's labor. It is a consistent image, one that is humanistic as well as
theological. In it man is the master of the creatures placed at his
disposal in the visible world. If some dependence is discovered in the
work process, it is dependence on the Giver of all the resources of
creation and also on other human beings, those to whose work and
initiative we owe the perfected and increased possibilities of our own
work. All that we can say of everything in the production process which
constitutes a whole collection of "things," the instruments, the capital,
is that it conditions man's work; we cannot assert that it constitutes as
it were an impersonal "subject" putting man and man's work into a
position of dependence.

60. This consistent image, in which the principle of the primacy of
person over things is strictly preserved, was broken up in human thought
sometimes after a long period of incubation in practical living. The
break occurred in such a way that labor was separated from capital and
set in opposition to it, and capital was set in opposition to labor, as
though they were two impersonal forces, two production factors juxtaposed
in the same "economistic" perspective. This way of stating the issue
contained a fundamental error, what we can call the error of economism,
that of considering human labor solely according to its economic purpose.
This fundamental error of thought can and must be called an error of
materialism, in that economism directly or indirectly includes a
conviction of the primacy and superiority of the material, and directly
or indirectly places the spiritual and the personal (man's activity,
moral values and such matters) in a position of subordination to material
reality. This is still not theoretical materialism in the full sense of
the term, but it is certainly practical materialism, a materialism judged
capable of satisfying man's needs not so much on the grounds of premises
derived from materialist theory as on the grounds of a particular way of
evaluating things and so on the grounds of a certain hierarchy of goods
based on the greater immediate attractiveness of what is material.

61. The error of thinking in the categories of economism went hand in
hand with the formation of a materialist philosophy, as this philosophy
developed from the most elementary and common phase (also called common
materialism, because it professes to reduce spiritual reality to a
superfluous phenomenon) to the phase of what is called dialectical
materialism. However, within the framework of the present consideration,
it seems that economism had a decisive importance for the fundamental
issue of human work, in particular for the separation of labor and
capital and for setting them up in opposition as two production factors
viewed in the above-mentioned economistic perspective; and it seems that
economism influenced this non humanistic way of stating the issue before
the materialist philosophical system did. Nevertheless it is obvious that
materialism, including its dialectical form, is incapable of providing
sufficient and definitive bases for thinking about human work, in order
that the primacy of man over the capital instrument, the primacy of the
person over things, may find in it adequate and irrefutable confirmation
and support. In dialectical materialism too man is not first and foremost
the subject of work and the efficient cause of the production process,
but continues to be understood and treated, in dependence on what is
material, as a kind of "resultant" of the economic or production
relations prevailing at a given period.

62. Obviously the antinomy between labor and capital under consideration
here--the antinomy in which labor was separated from capital and set up
in opposition to it, in a certain sense on the ontic level as if it were
just an element like any other in the economic process--did not originate
merely in the philosophy and economic theories of the 18th century;
rather it originated in the whole of economic and social practice of that
time, the time of the birth and rapid development of industrialization,
in which what was mainly seen was the possibility of vastly increasing
material wealth, means, while the end, that is to say man, who should be
served by the means, was ignored. It was this practical error that struck
a blow first and foremost against human labor, against the working man,
and caused the ethically just social reaction already spoken of above.
The same error, which is now part of history and which was connected with
the period of primitive capitalism and liberalism, can nevertheless be
repeated in other circumstances of time and place if people's thinking
starts from the same theoretical or practical premises. The only chance
there seems to be for radically overcoming this error is through adequate
changes both in theory and in practice, changes in line with the definite
conviction of the primacy of the person over things and of human labor
over capital as a whole collection of means of production.

Work and Ownership

63. The historical process briefly presented here has certainly gone
beyond its initial phase, but it is still taking place and indeed is
spreading in the relationships between nations and continents. It needs
to be specified further from another point of view. It is obvious that
when we speak of opposition between labor and capital, we are not dealing
only with abstract concepts or "impersonal forces" operating in economic
production. Behind both concepts there are people, living, actual people:
On the one side are those who do the work without being the owners of the
means of production, and on the other side those who act as entrepreneurs
and who own these means or represent the owner. Thus the issue of
ownership or property enters from the beginning into the whole of this
difficult historical process. The encyclical Rerum novarum, which has the
social question as its theme, stresses this issue also, recalling and
confirming the Church's teaching on ownership, on the right to private
property even when it is a question of the means of production. The
encyclical Mater et Magistra did the same.

64. The above principle, as it was then stated and as it is still taught
by the Church, diverges radically from the program of collectivism as
proclaimed by Marxism and put into practice in various countries in the
decades following the time of Leo XIII's encyclical. At the same time it
differs from the program of capitalism practiced by liberalism and by the
political systems inspired by it. In the latter case, the difference
consists in the way the right to ownership or property is understood.
Christian tradition has never upheld this right as absolute and
untouchable. On the contrary, it has always understood this right within
the broader context of the right common to all to use the goods of the
whole of creation: The right to private property is subordinated to the
right to common use, to the fact that goods are meant for everyone.

65. Furthermore, in the Church's teaching, ownership has never been
understood in a way that could constitute grounds for social conflict in
labor. As mentioned above, property is acquired first of all through work
in order that it may serve work. This concerns in a special way ownership
of the means of production. Isolating these means as a separate property
in order to set it up in the form of "capital" in opposition to
"labor"--and even to practice exploitation of labor--is contrary to the
very nature of these means and their possession. They cannot be possessed
against labor, they cannot even be possessed for possession's sake,
because the only legitimate title to their possession--whether in the
form of private ownership or in the form of public or collective
ownership--is that they should serve labor and thus by serving labor that
they should make possible the achievement of the first principle of this
order, namely the universal destination of goods and the right to common
use of them. From this point of view, therefore, in consideration of
human labor and of common access to the goods meant for man, one cannot
exclude the socialization, in suitable conditions, of certain means of
production. In the course of the decades since the publication of the
encyclical Rerum novarum, the Church's teaching has always recalled all
these principles, going back to the arguments formulated in a much older
tradition, for example, the well-known arguments of the Summa Theologiae
of St. Thomas Aquinas.[22]

66. In the present document, which has human work as its main theme, it
is right to confirm all the effort with which the Church's teaching has
striven and continues to strive always to ensure the priority of work and
thereby man's character as a subject in social life and especially in the
dynamic structure of the whole economic process. From this point of view
the position of "rigid" capitalism continues to remain unacceptable,
namely the position that defends the exclusive right to private ownership
of the means of production as an untouchable "dogma" of economic life.
The principle of respect for work demands that this right should undergo
a constructive revision both in theory and in practice. If it is true
that capital, as the whole of the means of production, is at the same
time the product of the work of generations, it is equally true that
capital is being unceasingly created through the work done with the help
of all these means of production, and these means can be seen as a great
workbench at which the present generation of workers is working day after
day. Obviously we are dealing here with different kinds of work, not only
so-called manual labor, but also the many forms of intellectual work,
including white-collar work and management.

67. In the light of the above, the many proposals put forward by experts
in Catholic social teaching and by the highest magisterium of the Church
take on special significance:[23] proposals for joint ownership of the
means of work, sharing by the workers in the management and-or profits of
businesses, so-called shareholding by labor, etc. Whether these various
proposals can or cannot be applied concretely, it is clear that
recognition of the proper position of labor and the worker in the
production process demands various adaptations in the sphere of the right
to ownership of the means of production. This is so not only in view of
older situations but also, first and foremost, in view of the whole of
the situation and the problems in the second half of the present century
with regard to the so-called Third World and the various new independent
countries that have arisen, especially in Africa but elsewhere as well,
in place of the colonial territories of the past.

68. Therefore, while the position of "rigid" capitalism must undergo
continual revision in order to be reformed from the point of view of
human rights, both human rights in the widest sense and those linked with
man's work, it must be stated that from the same point of view these many
deeply desired reforms cannot be achieved by an a priori elimination of
private ownership of the means of production. For it must be noted that
merely taking these means of production (capital) out of the hands of
their private owners is not enough to ensure their satisfactory
socialization. They cease to be the property of a certain social group,
namely the private owners, and become the property of organized society,
coming under the administration and direct control of another group of
people, namely those who, though not owning them, from the fact of
exercising power in society manage them on the level of the whole
national or the local economy.

69. This group in authority may carry out its task satisfactorily from
the point of view of the priority of labor; but it may also carry it out
badly by claiming for itself a monopoly of the administration and
disposal of the means of production and not refraining even from
offending basic human rights. Thus, merely converting the means of
production into state property in the collectivist systems is by no means
equivalent to "socializing" that property. We can speak of socializing
only when the subject character of society is ensured, that is to say,
when on the basis of his work each person is fully entitled to consider
himself a part owner of the great workbench at which he is working with
everyone else. A way toward that goal could be found by associating labor
with the ownership of capital, as far as possible, and by producing a
wide range of intermediate bodies with economic, social and cultural
purposes; they would be bodies enjoying real autonomy with regard to the
public powers, pursuing their specific aims in honest collaboration with
each other and in subordination to the demands of the common good, and
they would be living communities both in form and in substance in the
sense that the members of each body would be looked upon and treated as
persons and encouraged to take an active part in the life of the
body.[24]

The "Personalist" Argument

70. Thus the principle of the priority of labor over capital is a
postulate of the order of social morality. It has key importance both in
the system built on the principle of private ownership of the means of
production and also in the systems in which private ownership of these
means has been limited even in a radical way. Labor is in a sense
inseparable from capital; in no way does it accept the antinomy, that is
to say, the separation and opposition with regard to the means of
production that has weighed upon human life in recent centuries as a
result of merely economic premises. When man works, using all the means
of production, he also wishes the fruit of this work to be used by
himself and others, and he wishes to be able to take part in the very
work process as a sharer in responsibility and creativity at the
workbench to which he applies himself.

71. From this spring certain specific rights of workers, corresponding to
the obligation of work. They will be discussed later. But here it must be
emphasized in general terms that the person who works desires not only
due rumuneration for his work; he also wishes that within the production
process provision be made for him to be able to know that in his work,
even on something that is owned in common, he is working "for himself."
This awareness is extinguished within him in a system of excessive
bureaucratic centralization, which makes the worker feel that he is just
a cog in a huge machine moved from above, that he is for more reasons
than one a mere production instrument rather than a true subject of work
with an initiative of his own. The Church's teaching has always expressed
the strong and deep conviction that man's work concerns not only the
economy but also, and especially, personal values. The economic system
itself and the production process benefit precisely when these personal
values are fully respected. In the mind of St. Thomas Aquinas,[25] this
is the principal reason in favor of private ownership of the means of
production. While we accept that for certain well-founded reasons
exceptions can be made to the principle of private ownership--in our own
time we even see that the system of "socialized ownership" has been
introduced--nevertheless the personalist argument still holds good both
on the level of principles and on the practical level. If it is to be
rational and fruitful, any socialization of the means of production must
take this argument into consideration. Every effort must be made to
ensure that in this kind of system also the human person can preserve his
awareness of working "for himself." If this is not done, incalculable
damage is inevitably done throughout the economic process, not only
economic damage but first and foremost damage to man.

IV. RIGHTS OF WORKERS

Within the Broad Context of Human Rights

72. While work, in all its many senses, is an obligation, that is to say
a duty, it is also a source of rights on the part of the worker. These
rights must be examined in the broad context of human rights as a whole,
which are connatural with man and many of which are proclaimed by various
international organizations and increasingly guaranteed by the individual
states for their citizens. Respect for this broad range of human rights
constitutes the fundamental condition for peace in the modern world:
peace both within individual countries and societies and in international
relations, as the Church's magisterium has several times noted,
especially since the encyclical Pacem in terris. The human rights that
flow from work are part of the broader context of those fundamental
rights of the person.

73. However, within this context they have a specific character
corresponding to the specific nature of human work as outlined above. It
is in keeping with this character that we must view them. Work is, as has
been said, an obligation, that is to say, a duty, on the part of man.
This is true in all the many meanings of the word. Man must work both
because the Creator has commanded it and because of his own humanity,
which requires work in order to be maintained and developed. Man must
work out of regard for others, especially his own family, but also for
the society he belongs, to the country of which he is a child and the
whole human family of which he is a member, since he is the heir to the
work of generations and at the same time a sharer in building the future
of those who will come after him in the succession of history. All this
constitutes the moral obligation of work understood in its wide sense.
When we have to consider the moral rights corresponding to this
obligation of every person with regard to work, we must always keep
before our eyes the whole vast range of points of reference in which the
labor of every working subject is manifested.

74. For when we speak of the obligation of work and of the rights of the
worker that correspond to this obligation, we think in the first place of
the relationship between the employer, direct or indirect, and the worker.

75. The distinction between the direct and the indirect employer is seen
to be very important when one considers both the way in which labor is
actually organized and the possibility of the formation of just or unjust
relationships in the field of labor.

76. Since the direct employer is the person or institution with whom the
worker enters directly into a work contract in accordance with definite
conditions, we must understand as the indirect employer many different
factors, other than the direct employer, that exercise a determining
influence on the shaping both of the work contract and consequently of
just or unjust relationships in the field of human labor.

Direct and Indirect Employer

77. The concept of indirect employer includes both persons and
institutions of various kinds and also collective labor contracts and the
principles of conduct which are laid down by these persons and
institutions and which determine the whole socioeconomic system or are
its result. The concept of "indirect employer" thus refers to many
different elements. The responsibility of the indirect employer differs
from that of the direct employer--the term itself indicates that the
responsibility is less direct--but it remains a true responsibility: The
indirect employer substantially determines one or other facet of the
labor relationship, thus conditioning the conduct of the direct employer
when the latter determines in concrete terms the actual work contract and
labor relations. This is not to absolve the direct employer from his own
responsibility, but only to draw attention to the whole network of
influences that condition his conduct. When it is a question of
establishing an ethically correct labor policy, all these influences must
be kept in mind. A policy is correct when the objective rights of the
worker are fully respected.

78. The concept of indirect employer is applicable to every society and
in the first place to the state. For it is the state that must conduct a
just labor policy. However, it is common knowledge that in the present
system of economic relations in the world there are numerous links
between individual states, links that find expression, for instance, in
the import and export process, that is to say, in the mutual exchange of
economic goods, whether raw materials, semimanufactured goods or finished
industrial products. These links also create mutual dependence, and as a
result it would be difficult to speak in the case of any state, even the
economically most powerful, of complete self-sufficiency or autarky.

79. Such a system of mutual dependence is in itself normal. However it
can easily become an occasion for various forms of exploitation or
injustice and as a result influence the labor policy of individual
states; and finally it can influence the individual worker who is the
proper subject of labor. For instance the highly industrialized
countries, and even more the businesses that direct on a large scale the
means of industrial production (the companies referred to as
multinational or transnational), fix the highest possible prices for
their products, while trying at the same time to fix the lowest possible
prices for raw materials or semimanufactured goods. This is one of the
causes of an ever increasing disproportion between national incomes. The
gap between most of the richest countries and the poorest ones is not
diminishing or being stabilized, but is increasing more and more to the
detriment, obviously, of the poor countries. Evidently this must have an
effect on local labor policy and on the worker's situation in the
economically disadvantaged societies. Finding himself in a system thus
conditioned, the direct employer fixes working conditions below the
objective requirements of the workers, especially if he himself wishes to
obtain the highest possible profits from the business which he runs (or
from the businesses which he runs, in the case of a situation of
"socialized" ownership of the means of production).

80. It is easy to see that this framework of forms of dependence linked
with the concept of the indirect employer is enormously extensive and
complicated. It is determined, in a sense, by all the elements that are
decisive for economic life within a given society and state, but also by
much wider links and forms of dependence. The attainment of the worker's
rights cannot however be doomed to be merely a result of economic systems
which on a larger or smaller scale are guided chiefly by the criterion of
maximum profit. On the contrary, it is respect for the objective rights
of the worker--every kind of worker: manual or intellectual, industrial
or agricultural, etc.--that must constitute the adequate and fundamental
criterion for shaping the whole economy, both on the level of the
individual society and state and within the whole of the world economic
policy and of the systems of international relationships that derive from
it.

81. Influence in this direction should be exercised by all the
international organizations whose concern it is, beginning with the
United Nations. It appears that the International Labor Organization and
the Food and Agriculture Organization of the United Nations and other
bodies too have fresh contributions to offer on this point in particular.
Within the individual states there are ministries or public departments
and also various social institutions set up for this purpose. All of this
effectively indicates the importance of the indirect employer--as has
been said above--in achieving full respect for the worker's rights, since
the rights of the human person are the key element in the whole of the
social moral order.

The Employment Issue

82. When we consider the rights of workers in relation to the "indirect
employer," that is to say, all the agents at the national and
international level that are responsible for the whole orientation of
labor policy, we must first direct our attention to a fundamental issue:
the question of finding work or, in other words, the issue of suitable
employment for all who are capable of it. The opposite of a just and
right situation in this field is unemployment, that is to say, the lack
of work for those who are capable of it. It can be a question of general
unemployment or of unemployment in certain sectors of work. The role of
the agents included under the title of indirect employer is to act
against unemployment, which in all cases is an evil and which, when it
reaches a certain level, can become a real social disaster. It is
particularly painful when it especially affects young people, who after
appropriate cultural, technical and professional preparation fail to find
work and see their sincere wish to work and their readiness to take on
their own responsibility for the economic and social development of the
community sadly frustrated. The obligation to provide unemployment
benefits, that is to say, the duty to make suitable grants indispensable
for the subsistence of unemployed workers and their families, is a duty
springing from the fundamental principle of the moral order in this
sphere, namely the principle of the common use of goods or, to put it in
another and still simpler way, the right to life and subsistence.

83. In order to meet the danger of unemployment and to ensure employment
for all, the agents defined here as "indirect employer" must make
provision for overall planning with regard to the different kinds of work
by which not only the economic life, but also the cultural life of a
given society is shaped; they must also give attention to organizing that
work in a correct and rational way. In the final analysis this overall
concern weighs on the shoulders of the state, but it cannot mean
one-sided centralization by the public authorities. Instead, what is in
question is a just and rational coordination, within the framework of
which the initiative of individuals, free groups and local work centers
and complexes must be safeguarded, keeping in mind what has been said
above with regard to the subject character of human labor.

84. The fact of the mutual dependence of societies and states and the
need to collaborate in various areas mean that, while preserving the
sovereign rights of each society and state in the field of planning and
organizing labor in its own society, action in this important area must
also be taken in the dimension of international collaboration by means of
the necessary treaties and agreements. Here too the criterion for these
pacts and agreements must more and more be the criterion of human work
considered as a fundamental right of all human beings, work which gives
similar rights to all those who work in such a way that the living
standard of the workers in the different societies will less and less
show those disturbing differences which are unjust and are apt to provoke
even violent reactions. The international organizations have an enormous
part to play in this area. They must let themselves be guided by an exact
diagnosis of the complex situations and of the influence exercised by
natural, historical, civil and other such circumstances. They must also
be more highly operative with regard to plans for action jointly decided
on, that is to say, they must be more effective in carrying them out.

85. In this direction, it is possible to actuate a plan for universal and
proportionate progress by all in accordance with the guidelines of Paul
Vl's encyclical Populorum progressio. It must be stressed that the
constitutive element in this progress and also the most adequate way to
verify it in a spirit of justice and peace, which the Church proclaims
and for which she does not cease to pray to the Father of all individuals
and of all peoples, is the continual reappraisal of man's work, both in
the aspect of its objective finality and in the aspect of the dignity of
the subject of all work, that is to say, man. The progress in question
must be made through man and for man and it must produce its fruit in
man. A test of this progress will be the increasingly mature recognition
of the purpose of work and increasingly universal respect for the rights
inherent in work in conformity with the dignity of man, the subject of
work.

86. Rational planning and the proper organization of human labor in
keeping with individual societies and states should also facilitate the
discovery of the right proportions between the different kinds of
employment: work on the land, in industry, in the various services,
white-collar work and scientific or artistic work, in accordance with the
capacities of individuals and for the common good of each society and of
the whole of mankind. The organization of human life in accordance with
the many possibilities of labor should be matched by a suitable system of
instruction and education aimed first of all at developing mature human
beings, but also aimed at preparing people specifically for assuming to
good advantage an appropriate place in the vast and socially
differentiated world of work.

87. As we view the whole human family throughout the world, we cannot
fail to be struck by a disconcerting fact of immense proportions: the
fact that while conspicuous natural resources remain unused there are
huge numbers of people who are unemployed or under employed and countless
multitudes of people suffering from hunger. This is a fact that without
any doubt demonstrates that both within the individual political
communities and in their relationships on the continental and world
levels there is something wrong with the organization of work and
employment, precisely at the most critical and socially most important
points.

Wages and Other Social Benefits

88. After outlining the important role that concern for providing
employment for all workers plays in safeguarding respect for the
inalienable rights of man in view of his work, it is worthwhile taking a
closer look at these rights, which in the final analysis are formed
within the relationship between worker and direct employer. All that has
been said above on the subject of the indirect employer is aimed at
defining these relationships more exactly, by showing the many forms of
conditioning within which these relationships are indirectly formed. This
consideration does not however have a purely descriptive purpose; it is
not a brief treatise on economics or politics. It is a matter of
highlighting the deontological and moral aspect. The key problem of
social ethics in this case is that of just remuneration for work done. In
the context of the present there is no more important way for securing a
just relationship between the worker and the employer than that
constituted by remuneration for work. Whether the work is done in a
system of private ownership of the means of production or in a system
where ownership has undergone a certain "socialization," the relationship
between the employer (first and foremost the direct employer) and the
worker is resolved on the basis of the wage, that is, through just
remuneration of the work done.

89. It should also be noted that the justice of a socioeconomic system
and, in each case, its just functioning, deserve in the final analysis to
be evaluated by the way in which man's work is properly remunerated in
the system. Here we return once more to the first principle of the whole
ethical and social order, namely the principle of the common use of
goods. In every system, regardless of the fundamental relationships
within it between capital and labor, wages, that is to say remuneration
for work, are still a practical means whereby the vast majority of people
can have access to those goods which are intended for common use: both
the goods of nature and manufactured goods. Both kinds of goods become
accessible to the worker through the wage which he receives as
remuneration for his work. Hence in every case a just wage is the
concrete means of verifying the justice of the whole socioeconomic system
and, in any case, of checking that it is functioning justly. It is not
the only means of checking, but it is a particularly important one and in
a sense the key means.

90. This means of checking concerns above all the family. Just
remuneration for the work of an adult who is responsible for a family
means remuneration which will suffice for establishing and properly
maintaining a family and for providing security for its future. Such
remuneration can be given either through what is called a family
wage--that is, a single salary given to the head of the family for his
work, sufficient for the needs of the family without the other spouse
having to take up gainful employment outside the home--or through other
social measures such as family allowances or grants to mothers devoting
themselves exclusively to their families. These grants should correspond
to the actual needs, that is, to the number of dependents for as long as
they are not in a position to assume proper responsibility for their own
lives.

91. Experience confirms that there must be a social re-evaluation of the
mother's role, of the toil connected with it and of the need that
children have for care, love and affection in order that they may develop
into responsible, morally and religiously mature and psychologically
stable persons. It will redound to the credit of society to make it
possible for a mother--without inhibiting her freedom, without
psychological or practical discrimination, and without penalizing her as
compared with other women--to devote herself to taking care of her
children and educating them in accordance with their needs, which vary
with age. Having to abandon these tasks in order to take up paid work
outside the home is wrong from the point of view of the good of society
and of the family when it contradicts or hinders these primary goals of
the mission of a mother.[26]

92. In this context it should be emphasized that on a more general level
the whole labor process must be organized and adapted in such a way as to
respect the requirements of the person and his or her forms of life,
above all life in the home, taking into account the individual's age and
sex. It is a fact that in many societies women work in nearly every
sector of life. But it is fitting that they should be able to fulfill
their tasks in accordance with their own nature, without being
discriminated against and without being excluded from jobs for which they
are capable, but also without lack of respect for their family
aspirations and for their specific role in contributing, together with
men, to the good of society. The true advancement of women requires that
labor should be structured in such a way that women do not have to pay
for their advancement by abandoning what is specific to them and at the
expense of the family, in which women as mothers have an irreplaceable
role.

93. Besides wages, various social benefits intended to ensure the life
and health of workers and their families play a part here. The expenses
involved in health care, especially in the case of accidents at work,
demand that medical assistance should be easily available for workers and
that as far as possible it should be cheap or even free of charge.
Another sector regarding benefits is the sector associated with the right
to rest. In the first place this involves a regular weekly rest
comprising at least Sunday and also a longer period of rest, namely the
holiday or vacation taken once a year or possibly in several shorter
periods during the year. A third sector concerns the right to a pension
and to insurance for old age and in case of accidents at work. Within the
sphere of these principal rights there develops a whole system of
particular rights which, together with remuneration for work, determine
the correct relationship between worker and employer. Among these rights
there should never be overlooked the right to a working environment and
to manufacturing processes which are not harmful to the workers' physical
health or to their moral integrity.

Importance of Unions

94. All these rights, together with the need for the workers themselves
to secure them, give rise to yet another right: the right of association,
that is, to form associations for the purpose of defending the vital
interests of those employed in the various professions. These
associations are called labor or trade unions. The vital interests of the
workers are to a certain extent common for all of them; at the same time,
however, each type of work, each profession, has its own specific
character which should find a particular reflection in these
organizations.

95. In a sense, unions go back to the medieval guilds of artisans,
insofar as those organizations brought together people belonging to the
same craft and thus on the basis of their work. However unions differ
from the guilds on this essential point: The modern unions grew up from
the struggle of the workers--workers in general but especially the
industrial workers--to protect their just rights vis-a-vis the
entrepreneurs and the owners of the means of production. Their task is to
defend the existential interests of workers in all sectors in which their
rights are concerned. The experience of history teaches that
organizations of this type are an indispensable element of social life,
especially in modern industrialized societies. Obviously this does not
mean that only industrial workers can set up associations of this type.
Representatives of every profession can use them to ensure their own
rights. Thus there are unions of agricultural workers and of white-collar
workers; there are also employers' associations. All, as has been said
above, are further divided into groups or subgroups according to
particular professional specializations.

96. Catholic social teaching does not hold that unions are no more than a
reflection of the "class" structure of society and that they are a
mouthpiece for a class struggle which inevitably governs social life.
They are indeed a mouthpiece for the struggle for social justice, for the
just rights or working people in accordance with their individual
professions. However, this struggle should be seen as a normal endeavor
"for" the just good: In the present case, for the good which corresponds
to the needs and merits of working people associated by profession; but
it is not a struggle "against" others. Even if in controversial questions
the struggle takes on a character of opposition toward others, this is
because it aims at the good of social justice, not for the sake of
"struggle" or in order to eliminate the opponent. It is characteristic of
work that it first and foremost unites people. In this consists its
social power: the power to build a community. In the final analysis, both
those who work and those who manage the means of production or who own
them must in some way be united in this community. In the light of this
fundamental structure of all work--in the light of the fact that, in the
final analysis, labor and capital are indispensable components of the
process of production in any social system--it is clear that even if it
is because of their work needs that people unite to secure their rights,
their union remains a constructive factor of social order and solidarity,
and it is impossible to ignore it.

97. Just efforts to secure the rights of workers who are united by the
same profession should always take into account the limitations imposed
by the general economic situation of the country. Union demands cannot be
turned into a kind of group or class "egoism," although they can and
should also aim at correcting--with a view to the common good of the
whole of society--everything defective in the system of ownership of the
means of production or in the way these are managed. Social and
socioeconomic life is certainly like a system of "connected vessels," and
every social activity directed toward safeguarding the rights of
particular groups should adapt itself to this system .

98. In this sense, union activity undoubtedly enters the held of
politics, understood as prudent concern for the common good. However, the
role of unions is not to "play politics" in the sense that the expression
is commonly understood today. Unions do not have the character of
political parties struggling for power; they should not be subjected to
the decision of political parties or have too close links with them. In
fact, in such a situation they easily lose contact with their specific
role, which is to secure the just rights of workers within the framework
of the common good of the whole of society; instead they become an
instrument used for other purposes.

99. Speaking of the protection of the just rights of workers according to
their individual professions, we must of course always keep in mind that
which determines the subjective character of work in each profession, but
at the same time, indeed before all else, we must keep in mind that which
conditions the specific dignity of the subject of the work. The activity
of union organizations opens up many possibilities in this respect,
including their efforts to instruct and educate the workers and to foster
their self education. Praise is due to the work of the schools, what are
known as workers' or people's universities and the training programs and
courses which have developed and are still developing this field of
activity. It is always to be hoped that, thanks to the work of their
unions, workers will not only have more, but above all be more: in other
words that they will realize their humanity more fully in every respect.

100. One method used by unions in pursuing the just rights of their
members is the strike or work stoppage, as a kind of ultimatum to the
competent bodies, especially the employers. This method is recognized by
Catholic social teaching as legitimate in the proper conditions and
within just limits. In this connection workers should be assured the
right to strike, without being subjected to personal penal sanctions for
taking part in a strike. While admitting that it is a legitimate means,
we must at the same time emphasize that a strike remains, in a sense, an
extreme means. It must not be abused; it must not be abused especially
for "political" purposes. Furthermore, it must never be forgotten that
when essential community services are in question, they must in every
case be ensured, if necessary by means of appropriate legislation. Abuse
of the strike weapon can lead to the paralysis of the whole of
socioeconomic life, and this is contrary to the requirements of the
common good of society, which also corresponds to the properly understood
nature of work itself.

Dignity of Agricultural Work

101. All that has been said thus far on the dignity of work, on the
objective and subjective dimension of human work, can be directly applied
to the question of agricultural work and to the situation of the person
who cultivates the earth by toiling in the fields. This is a vast sector
of work on our planet, a sector not restricted to one or other continent
nor limited to the societies which have already attained a certain level
of development and progress. The world of agriculture, which provides
society with the goods it needs for its daily sustenance, is of
fundamental importance. The conditions of the rural population and of
agricultural work vary from place to place, and the social position of
agricultural workers differs from country to country. This depends not
only on the level of development of agricultural technology but also, and
perhaps more, on the recognition of the just rights of agricultural
workers and, finally, on the level of awareness regarding the social
ethics of work.

102. Agricultural work involves considerable difficulties, including
unremitting and sometimes exhausting physical effort and a lack of
appreciation on the part of society, to the point of making agricultural
people feel that they are social outcasts and of speeding up the
phenomenon of their mass exodus from the countryside to the cities and
unfortunately to still more dehumanizing living conditions. Added to this
are the lack of adequate professional training and of proper equipment,
the spread of a certain individualism and also objectively unjust
situations. In certain developing countries, millions of people are
forced to cultivate the land belonging to others and are exploited by the
big landowners, without any hope of ever being able to gain possession of
even a small piece of land of their own. There is a lack of forms of
legal protection for the agricultural workers themselves and for their
families in case of old age, sickness or unemployment. Long days of hard
physical work are paid miserably. Land which could be cultivated is left
abandoned by the owners. Legal titles to possession of a small portion of
land that someone has personally cultivated for years are disregarded or
left defenseless against the "land hunger" of more powerful individuals
or groups. But even in the economically developed countries, where
scientific research, technological achievements and state policy have
brought agriculture to a very advanced level, the right to work can be
infringed when the farm workers are denied the possibility of sharing in
decisions concerning their services, or when they are denied the right to
free association with a view to their just advancement socially,
culturally and economically.

103. In many situations radical and urgent changes are therefore needed
in order to restore to agriculture--and to rural people--its just value
as the basis for a healthy economy, within the social community's
development as a whole. Thus it is necessary to proclaim and promote the
dignity of work, of all work, but especially of agricultural work in
which man so eloquently "subdues" the earth he has received as a gift
from God and affirms his "dominion" in the visible world.

The Disabled Person and Work

104. Recently national communities and international organizations have
turned their attention to another question connected with work, one full
of implications: the question of disabled people. They too are fully
human subjects with corresponding innate, sacred and inviolable rights
and, in spite of the limitations and sufferings affecting their bodies
and faculties, they point up more clearly the dignity and greatness of
man. Since disabled people are subjects with all their rights, they
should be helped to participate in the life of society in all its aspects
and at all the levels accessible to their capacities. The disabled person
is one of us and participates fully in the same humanity that we possess.
It would be radically unworthy of man and a denial of our common humanity
to admit to the life of the community, and thus admit to work, only those
who are fully functional. To do so would be to practice a serious form of
discrimination, that of the strong and healthy against the weak and sick.
Work in the objective sense should be subordinated in this circumstance
too to the dignity of man, to the subject of work and not to economic
advantage.

105. The various bodies involved in the world of labor, both the direct
and the indirect employer, should therefore, by means of effective and
appropriate measures, foster the right of disabled people to professional
training and work so that they can be given a productive activity suited
to them. Many practical problems arise at this point, as well as legal
and economic ones; but the community, that is to say, the public
authorities, associations and intermediate groups, business enterprises
and the disabled themselves should pool their ideas and resources so as
to attain this goal that must not be shirked: that disabled people may be
offered work according to their capabilities, for this is demanded by
their dignity as persons and as subjects of work. Each community will be
able to set up suitable structures for finding or creating jobs for such
people both in the usual public or private enterprises, by offering them
ordinary or suitably adapted jobs, and in what are called "protected"
enterprises and surroundings.

106. Careful attention must be devoted to the physical and psychological
working conditions of disabled people--as for all workers--to their just
remuneration, to the possibility of their promotion and to the
elimination of various obstacles. Without hiding the fact that this is a
complex and difficult task, it is to be hoped that a correct concept of
labor in the subjective sense will produce a situation which will make it
possible for disabled people to feel that they are not cut off from the
working world or dependent upon society, but that they are full-scale
subjects of work, useful, respected for their human dignity and called to
contribute to the progress and welfare of their families and of the
community according to their particular capacities.

Work and the Emigration Question

107. Finally, we must say at least a few words on the subject of
emigration in search of work. This is an age-old phenomenon which
nevertheless continues to be repeated and is still today very widespread
as a result of the complexities of modern life. Man has the right to
leave his native land for various motives--and also the right to
return--in order to seek better conditions of life in another country.
This fact is certainly not without difficulties of various kinds. Above
all it generally constitutes a loss for the country which is left behind.
It is the departure of a person who is also a member of a great community
united by history, tradition and culture; and that person must begin life
in the midst of another society united by a different culture and very
often by a different language. In this case, it is the loss of a subject
of work, whose efforts of mind and body could contribute to the common
good of his own country, but these efforts, this contribution, are
instead offered to another society which in a sense has less right to
them than the person's country of origin.

108. Nevertheless, even if emigration is in some aspect an evil, in
certain circumstances it is, as the phrase goes, a necessary evil.
Everything should be done--and certainly much is being done to this
end--to prevent this material evil from causing greater moral harm;
indeed every possible effort should be made to ensure that it may bring
benefit to the emigrant's personal, family and social life, both for the
country to which he goes and the country which he leaves. In this area
much depends on just legislation, in particular with regard to the rights
of workers. It is obvious that the question of just legislation enters
into the context of the present considerations, especially from the point
of view of these rights.

109. The most important thing is that the person working away from his
native land, whether as a permanent emigrant or as a seasonal worker,
should not be placed at a disadvantage in comparison with the other
workers in that society in the matter of working rights. Emigration in
search for work must in no way become an opportunity for financial or
social exploitation. As regards the work relationship, the same criteria
should be applied to immigrant workers as to all other workers in the
society concerned. The value of work should be measured by the same
standard and not according to the difference in nationality, religion or
race. For even greater reason the situation of constraint in which the
emigrant may find himself should not be exploited. All these
circumstances should categorically give way, after special qualifications
have of course been taken into consideration, to the fundamental value of
work, which is bound up with the dignity of the human person. Once more
the fundamental principle must be repeated: The hierarchy of values and
the profound meaning of work itself require that capital should be at the
service of labor and not labor at the service of capital.

V. ELEMENTS FOR A SPIRITUALITY OF WORK

A Particular Task for the Church

110. It is right to devote the last part of these reflections about human
work on the occasion of the ninetieth anniversary of the encyclical Rerum
novarum to the spirituality of work in the Christian sense. Since work in
its subjective aspect is always a personal action, an actus personae, it
follows that the whole person, body and spirit, participates in it,
whether it is manual or intellectual work. It is also to the whole person
that the word of the living God is directed, the evangelical message of
salvation in which we find many points which concern human work and which
throw particular light on it. These points need to be properly
assimilated: An inner effort on the part of the human spirit, guided by
faith, hope and charity, is needed in order that through these points the
work of the individual human being may be given the meaning which it has
in the eyes of God and by means of which work enters into the salvation
process on a par with the other ordinary yet particularly important
components of its texture.

111. The Church considers it her duty to speak out on work from the
viewpoint of its human value and of the moral order to which it belongs,
and she sees this as one of her important tasks within the service that
she renders to the evangelical message as a whole. At the same time she
sees it as her particular duty to form a spirituality of work which will
help all people to come closer, through work, to God, the creator and
redeemer, to participate in his salvific plan for man and the world and
to deepen their friendship with Christ in their lives by accepting,
through faith, a living participation in his threefold mission as priest,
prophet and king, as the Second Vatican Council so eloquently teaches.

Work as a Sharing in the Activity of the Creator

112. As the Second Vatican Council says, "Throughout the course of the
centuries, men have labored to better the circumstances of their lives
through a monumental amount of individual and collective effort. To
believers, this point is settled: Considered in itself, such human
activity accords with God's will. For man, created to God's image,
received a mandate to subject to himself the earth and all that it
contains, and to govern the world with justice and holiness; a mandate to
relate himself and the totality of things to him who was to be
acknowledged as the Lord and Creator of all. Thus, by the subjection of
all things to man, the name of God would be wonderful in all the
earth."[27]

113. The word of God's revelation is profoundly marked by the fundamental
truth that man, created in the image of God, shares by his work in the
activity of the Creator and that, within the limits of his own human
capabilities, man in a sense continues to develop that activity and
perfects it as he advances further and further in the discovery of the
resources and values contained in the whole of creation. We find this
truth at the very beginning of sacred scripture in the Book of Genesis,
where the creation activity itself is presented in the form of "work"
done by God during "six days"[28] "resting" on the seventh day.[29]
Besides, the last book of sacred scripture echoes the same respect for
what God has done through his creative "work" when it proclaims: "Great
and wonderful are your deeds, O Lord God the Almighty";[30] this is
similar to the Book of Genesis, which concludes the description of each
day of creation with the statement: "And God saw that it was good."[31]

114. This description of creation, which we find in the very first
chapter of the Book of Genesis, is also in a sense the first "gospel of
work." For it shows what the dignity of work consists of: It teaches that
man ought to imitate God, his creator, in working, because man alone has
the unique characteristic of likeness to God. Man ought to imitate God
both in working and also in resting, since God himself wished to present
his own creative activity under the form of work and rest. This activity
by God in the world always continues, as the words of Christ attest: "My
father is working still";[32] he works with creative power by sustaining
in existence the world that he called into being from nothing, and he
works with salvific power in the hearts of those whom from the beginning
he has destined for "rest"[33] in union with himself in his "Father's
house."[34] Therefore man's work too not only requires a rest every
"seventh day,"[35] but also cannot consist in the mere exercise of human
strength in external action; it must leave room for man to prepare
himself, by becoming more and more what in the will of God he ought to
be, for the "rest" that the Lord reserves for his servants and
friends.[36]

115. Awareness that man's work is a participation in God's activity ought
to permeate, as the council teaches, even "the most ordinary everyday
activities. For, while providing the substance of life for themselves and
their families, men and women are performing their activities in a way
which appropriately benefits society. They can justly consider that by
their labor they are unfolding the Creator's work, consulting the
advantages of their brothers and sisters, and contributing by their
personal industry to the realization in history of the divine plan."[37]

116. This Christian spirituality of work should be a heritage shared by
all. Especially in the modern age, the spirituality of work should show
the maturity called for by the tensions and restlessness of mind and
heart. "Far from thinking that works produced by man's own talent and
energy are in opposition to God's power, and that the rational creature
exists as a kind of rival to the Creator, Christians are convinced that
the triumphs of the human race are a sign of God's greatness and the
flowering of his own mysterious design. For the greater man's power
becomes, the farther his individual and community responsibility
extends.... People are not deterred by the Christian message from
building up the world or impelled to neglect the welfare of their
fellows. They are, rather, more stringently bound to do these very
things."[38]

117. The knowledge that by means of work man shares in the work of
creation constitutes the most profound motive for undertaking it in
various sectors. "The faithful, therefore," we read in the constitution
Lumen gentium, "must learn the deepest meaning and the value of all
creation, and its orientation to the praise of God. Even by their secular
activity they must assist one another to live holier lives. In this way
the world will be permeated by the spirit of Christ and more effectively
achieve its purpose in justice, charity and peace . . . Therefore, by
their competence in secular fields and by their personal activity,
elevated from within by the grace of Christ, let them work vigorously so
that by human labor, technical skill and civil culture, created goods may
be perfected according to the design of the Creator and the light of his
word."[39]

Christ, the Man of Work

118. The truth that by means of work man participates in the activity of
God himself, his creator, was given particular prominence by Jesus
Christ--the Jesus at whom many of his first listeners in Nazareth "were
astonished, saying, 'Where did this man get all this? What is the wisdom
given to him? . . . Is not this the carpenter?'"[40] For Jesus not only
proclaimed but first and foremost fulfilled by his deeds the "gospel,"
the word of eternal wisdom that had been entrusted to him. Therefore,
this was also "the gospel of work," because he who proclaimed it was
himself a man of work, a craftsman like Joseph of Nazareth.[41] And if we
do not find in his words a special command to work--but rather on one
occasion a prohibition against too much anxiety about work and life[42]
--at the same time the eloquence of the life of Christ is unequivocal: He
belongs to the "working world," he has appreciation and respect for human
work. It can indeed be said that he looks with love upon human work and
the different forms that it takes, seeing in each one of these forms a
particular facet of man's likeness with God, the creator and Father. Is
it not he who says: "My Father is the vinedresser,[43] and in various
ways puts into his teaching the fundamental truth about work which is
already expressed in the whole tradition of the Old Testament, beginning
with the Book of Genesis?

119. The books of the Old Testament contain many references to human work
and to the individual professions exercised by man: for example, the
doctor,[44] the pharmacist,[45] the craftsman or artist,[46] the
blacksmith[47]--we could apply these words to today's foundry
workers--the potter,[48] the farmer,[49] the scholar,[50] the sailor,[51]
the builder,[52] the musician,[53] the shepherd[54] and the
fisherman.[55] The words of praise for the work of women are well
known.[56] In his parables on the kingdom of God, Jesus Christ constantly
refers to human work: that of the shepherd,[57] the farmer,[58] the
doctor,[59] the sower,[60] the householder,[61] the servant,[62] the
steward,[63] the fisherman,[64] the merchant,[65] the laborer.[66] He
also speaks of the various forms of women's work.[67] He compares the
apostolate to the manual work of harvesters[68] or fishermen.[69] He
refers to the work of scholars too.[70]

120. This teaching of Christ on work, based on the example of his life
during his years in Nazareth, finds a particularly lively echo in the
teaching of the apostle Paul. Paul boasts of working at his trade (he was
probably a tentmaker),[71] and thanks to that work he was able even as an
apostle to earn his own bread.[72] "With toil and labor we worked night
and day, that we might not burden any of you."[73] Hence his
instructions, in the form of exhortation and command, on the subject of
work: "Now such persons we command and exhort in the Lord Jesus Christ to
do their work in quietness and to earn their own living," he writes to
the Thessalonians.[74] In fact, noting that some "are living in idleness
. . . not doing any work,"[75] the apostle does not hesitate to say in
the same context: "If any one will not work, let him not eat."[76] In
another passage he encourages his readers: "Whatever your task, work
heartily, as serving the Lord and not men, knowing that from the Lord you
will receive the inheritance as your reward."[77]

121. The teachings of the "apostle of the gentiles" obviously have key
importance for the morality and spirituality of human work. They are an
important complement to the great though discreet gospel of work that we
find in the life and parables of Christ, in what Jesus "did and
taught."[78]

122. On the basis of these illuminations emanating from the source
himself, the Church has always proclaimed what we find expressed in
modern terms in the teaching of the Second Vatican Council: "Just as
human activity proceeds from man, so it is ordered toward man. For when a
man works he not only alters things and society, he develops himself as
well. He learns much, he cultivates his resources, he goes outside of
himself and beyond himself. Rightly understood, this kind of growth is of
greater value than any external riches which can be garnered . . . Hence,
the norm of human activity is this: that in accord with the divine plan
and will, it should harmonize with the genuine good of the human race and
allow people as individuals and as members of society to pursue their
total vocation and fulfill it."[79]

123. Such a vision of the values of human work, or in other words such a
spirituality of work, fully explains what we read in the same section of
the council's pastoral constitution with regard to the right meaning of
progress: "A person is more precious for what he is than for what he has.
Similarly, all that people do to obtain greater justice, wider
brotherhood and a more humane ordering of social relationships has
greater worth than technical advances. For these advances can supply the
material for human progress, but of themselves alone they can never
actually bring it about."[80]

124. This teaching on the question of progress and development--a subject
that dominates present-day thought--can be understood only as the fruit
of a tested spirituality of human work; and it is only on the basis of
such a spirituality that it can be realized and put into practice. This
is the teaching and also the program that has its roots in "the gospel of
work."

Human Work in the Light of the Cross and the Resurrection of Christ

125. There is yet another aspect of human work, an essential dimension of
it, that is profoundly imbued with the spirituality based on the Gospel.
All work, whether manual or intellectual, is inevitably linked with toil.
The Book of Genesis expresses it in a truly penetrating manner: The
original blessing of work contained in the very mystery of creation and
connected with man's elevation as the image of God is contrasted with the
curse that sin brought with it: "Cursed is the ground because of you; in
toil you shall eat of it all the days of your life."[81] This toil
connected with work marks the way of human life on earth and constitutes
an announcement of death: "In the sweat of your face you shall eat bread
till you return to the ground, for out of it you were taken."[82] Almost
as an echo of these words, the author of one of the wisdom books says:
"Then I considered all that my hands had done and the toil I had spent in
doing it."[83] There is no one on earth who could not apply these words
to himself.

126. In a sense, the final word of the Gospel on this matter as on others
is found in the paschal mystery of Jesus Christ. It is here that we must
seek an answer to these problems so important for the spirituality of
human work. The paschal mystery contains the cross of Christ and his
obedience unto death, which the apostle contrasts with the disobedience
which from the beginning has burdened man's history on earth.[84] It also
contains the elevation of Christ, who by means of death on a cross
returns to his disciples in the resurrection with the power of the Holy
Spirit.

127. Sweat and toil, which work necessarily involves in the present
condition of the human race, present the Christian and everyone who is
called to follow Christ with the possibility of sharing lovingly in the
work that Christ came to do.[85] This work of salvation came about
through suffering and death on a cross. By enduring the toil of work in
union with Christ crucified for us, man in a way collaborates with the
Son of God for the redemption of humanity. He shows himself a true
disciple of Christ by carrying the cross in his turn every day[86] in the
activity that he is called upon to perform .

128. Christ, "undergoing death itself for all of us sinners, taught us by
example that we too must shoulder that cross which the world and the
flesh inflict upon those who pursue peace and justice"; but also, at the
same time, "appointed Lord by his resurrection and given all authority in
heaven and on earth, Christ is now at work in people's hearts through the
power of his Spirit . . . He animates, purifies and strengthens those
noble longings too by which the human family strives to make its life
more human and to render the whole earth submissive to this goal."[87]

129. The Christian finds in human work a small part of the cross of
Christ and accepts it in the same spirit of redemption in which Christ
accepted his cross for us. In work, thanks to the light that penetrates
us from the resurrection of Christ, we always find a glimmer of new life,
of the new good, as if it were an announcement of "the new heavens and
the new earth"[88] in which man and the world participate precisely
through the toil that goes with work. Through toil--and never without it.
On the one hand this confirms the indispensability of the cross in the
spirituality of human work; on the other hand the cross which this toil
constitutes reveals a new good springing from work itself, from work
understood in depth and in all its aspects and never apart from work.

130. Is this new good--the fruit of human work--already a small part of
that "new earth" where justice dwells?[89] If it is true that the many
forms of toil that go with man's work are a small part of the cross of
Christ, what is the relationship of this new good to the resurrection of
Christ? The council seeks to reply to this question also, drawing light
from the very sources of the revealed word: "Therefore, while we are
warned that it profits a man nothing if he gains the whole world and
loses himself (cf. Lk. 9:25), the expectation of a new earth must not
weaken but rather stimulate our concern for cultivating this one. For
here grows the body of a new human family, a body which even now is able
to give some kind of foreshadowing of the new age. Earthly progress must
be carefully distinguished from the growth of Christ's kingdom.
Nevertheless, to the extent that the former can contribute to the better
ordering of human society, it is of vital concern to the kingdom of
God."[90]

131. In these present reflections devoted to human work we have tried to
emphasize everything that seemed essential to it, since it is through
man's labor that not only "the fruits of our activity," but also "human
dignity, brotherhood and freedom" must increase on earth.[91] Let the
Christian who listens to the word of the living God, uniting work with
prayer, know the place that his work has not only in earthly progress,
but also in the development of the kingdom of God, to which we are all
called through the power of the Holy Spirit and through the word of the
Gospel.

132. In concluding these reflections, I gladly impart the apostolic
blessing to all of you, venerable brothers and beloved sons and daughters.

133. I prepared this document for publication last May 15, on the
ninetieth anniversary of the encyclical Rerum novarum, but it is only
after my stay in the hospital that I have been able to revise it
definitively.

Given at Castelgandolfo, the 14th day of September, the feast of the
triumph of the cross, in the year 1981, the third of the pontificate.